The Del Puerto Health Care District wants to move its health center to the Keystone Pacific Business Park, and with good reason.

The move makes sense in a number of ways. For one, the district would own the building outright instead of renting one. It would also allow more space for current operations and possibly for future expansion, and it would be a more attractive site to lure physicians than the current location.

It would get the city of Patterson that much closer to having legitimate, quality health care available locally.

The Patterson Planning Commission has already approved the move — twice. Now the City Council will weigh in.

Why so many hurdles for a move that seems to make so much sense?

Local developer John Ramos owns the building that now houses the district’s health center. After the planning commission first approved the move to Keystone, he objected, saying that the zoning in that area allows only for industrial medicine and urgent care. Because the facility’s main service would be primary care, he said, the move should not be allowed.

So he appealed the commission’s unanimous approval of the move and was met with another unanimous vote in favor of the health care district. According to one planning commissioner, the development agreement between the city and Keystone trumps any zoning and should be the guiding document for such decisions.

That agreement, the commissioners said, allows for the use planned by the health care district.

Ramos’ attorney has drafted a lease termination agreement with at least one unusual stipulation. It calls for a $125,000 restoration fee absent from the original lease, which expires next year. That’s not all that unusual on its own, but the agreement also carries a provision that if all of its stipulations are met — including payment of the new $125,000 fee — Ramos will drop his appeal of the planning commission’s decision to allow the move.

This is where it gets sticky.

Ramos’ attorney says the provision regarding the appeal was written into the agreement at the district’s request, while the district seems to be painting this as an offer from Ramos to drop the appeal in exchange for cash.

The City Council’s decision on Ramos’ appeal must be based solely on a thorough understanding of the zoning laws and development agreements in place. With the two sides so heated and making such divergent claims, it is critical to remove any emotion — including allegiances to either side — from the equation.

Ramos’ attorney has requested that the council delay its decision so that he can be present to offer a full explanation of his client’s views on the zoning regulations, something he said was not allowed by the planning commission.

The council might be wise to grant that request — pushing the decision to the earliest possible date that will allow both sides to be fully heard — not only in the name of fairness, but also to give itself ample time to understand all aspects of a complex issue.